Full Verdict in Kai Kai Case Published; Court Panel's Reasoning for Social Worker's 'Guarantor Status' Based on 'Case-by-Case Judgment'
In the child abuse case of toddler 'Kai Kai', the social worker from the Child Welfare League was sentenced to two years for negligent homicide, and the full verdict has been released. The court established the worker's 'guarantor status' based on the specific facts of the case.
📋 Article Processing Timeline
- 📰 Published: April 21, 2026 at 21:54
- 🔍 Collected: April 21, 2026 at 22:01 (7 min after Published)
- 🤖 AI Analyzed: April 22, 2026 at 01:27 (3h 25m after Collected)
(Central News Agency, Taipei, 21st) In the case of the abuse and death of the boy Kai Kai, the Taipei District Court sentenced Child Welfare League (CWLF) social worker Chen Shang-chieh to two years in prison for negligent homicide. The full verdict was published today. The judicial panel dedicated about 12 pages to discussing Chen Shang-chieh's guarantor status, stating that it was based on a case-by-case judgment and not merely arising from her professional identity as a social worker.
The Taipei District Court announced the sentence on the 16th, believing that Chen Shang-chieh failed to fulfill the active duties required of her guarantor status, abandoned her professional stance, and blindly trusted the absurd excuses of the nanny, thereby repeatedly missing rescue opportunities. She was sentenced to two years in prison for causing death by negligence. The case is appealable.
The court published the full verdict today, using about 12 pages and over 7,000 words to discuss Chen Shang-chieh's guarantor status, and also released the LINE conversation records between Chen Shang-chieh and the nanny, Liu Tsai-hsuan.
The verdict pointed out that a person with guarantor status who, despite being objectively able to pay attention, negligently fails to do so, violating their duty of care, and where the result is objectively attributable to the negligent act with a considerable causal relationship, should be held responsible for the foreseeable result through criminal negligence.
The panel stated that the CWLF, being specially licensed by the Ministry of Health and Welfare for adoption matching services, created and placed Kai Kai in a potentially risky environment (a source of danger) by using Liu Tsai-hsuan, whom they recruited and reviewed, to provide placement services, as they did not have their own placement institutions. Thus, they should bear corresponding supervision and protection obligations.
The verdict determined that the CWLF was not merely a mediating role connecting childcare resources, but a "special-duty corporate institution" authorized by law to provide out-of-home placement for Kai Kai.
According to the verdict, during his out-of-home placement, Kai Kai was objectively completely separated from his grandmother's protection and was substantively in a closed, isolated, and vulnerable situation. Kai Kai's grandmother could not visit or supervise the nanny at will and could only passively rely on Chen Shang-chieh for contact and reports.
The verdict pointed out that Chen Shang-chieh, as the social worker responsible for Kai Kai's adoption case and the most important companion who could personally enter the premises to check on his care during the placement, had a duty to cooperate with the CWLF in verifying the quality of the nanny's care and tracking Kai Kai's physical and mental development to prevent his death.
Regarding the court's finding that Chen Shang-chieh voluntarily assumed the obligations of a guarantor, the verdict noted that the tripartite family daycare contract stipulated that Liu Tsai-hsuan could not disclose Kai Kai's personal information without reason. This meant the Wenshan Home-Based Child Care Service Center or the Shuying Social Welfare Center could not obtain information about Kai Kai from Liu Tsai-hsuan to assess whether he was receiving proper care.
The panel concluded that Chen Shang-chieh, according to the contract, had in fact excluded other external units and monopolized information about Kai Kai's adoption process and health. As the "contact social worker" in the contract, she was the substantive window for the CWLF to exercise its contractual supervision rights and obtain information on Kai Kai's childcare and health.
Furthermore, the panel, based on the testimony of a CWLF supervisor, found that Chen Shang-chieh was not required to provide complete communication records and photos with Liu Tsai-hsuan for her visit reports, nor was she required to produce phased written reports, only a work intervention record before the adoption matching. This prevented the supervisor from exercising substantive oversight and effectively blocked the possibility for the CWLF to intervene and rescue Kai Kai in time through its internal control mechanisms.
A supervisor from the Wenshan Home-Based Child Care Service Center also testified that the CWLF did not provide Kai Kai's family or health information, and the contract even stated that the nanny could not disclose the child's personal history during the care period. "I find it incredible. After registration, this child is under our jurisdiction, but you won't let me know any information about the child."
The panel believed that the Wenshan center could not obtain other information to help Kai Kai, nor was there a possibility of timely rescue.
A former social worker surnamed Shih from the Shuying Social Welfare Center testified, "I don't want to say here that I have no responsibility at all, but I feel that after the discussion, the first person to intervene should have been the defendant, because she was the most accessible."
The panel believed that a division of labor was naturally formed during the communication between the former worker Shih and Chen Shang-chieh, with Chen being responsible for assessing Kai Kai's care and well-being. Since Shih did not receive the nanny's name or other information, and Chen did not proactively provide it, Shih could not conduct supervision or timely intervention.
According to the verdict, Chen Shang-chieh claimed that Shih was the primary social worker. When Shih said she was not going to visit the nanny, Chen's reply of "understood" did not mean she thought the arrangement was appropriate or reasonable, but because in this network of cooperation, it is indeed sometimes the case that the primary social worker relies on other social workers to visit and understand the situation.
However, the panel argued that if Chen had doubts about her scope of responsibility, she should have clarified it with Shih immediately. By knowing Shih would not visit and deciding not to provide key information like the nanny's contact details, the possibility of rescuing Kai Kai was clearly higher for her than for the person she perceived as the primary social worker. This proves Chen had assumed the main responsibility for tracking and ensuring Kai Kai's well-being in care, objectively placing him under her exclusive protective control, thus having the guarantor status of voluntarily assuming protective duties.
The panel therefore determined that Chen, based on her role as an adoption social worker, the operation of the tripartite childcare contract, and her handling of the case twice, had a comprehensive grasp of Kai Kai's growth trajectory, environmental transitions, and physical examination data from birth. She could have pieced together the truth of Kai Kai's abuse through the changes in his physical and mental state.
The panel concluded that the determination of Chen's guarantor status—as a controller of a dangerous source in concert with a special-duty corporate institution and a voluntary assumer of protective duties—was based on the specific facts of the case, and not merely because of the defendant's professional identity as a social worker. In other words, the court believes the person who should bear the guarantor's duty is the "defendant" who had substantive control but failed to act, not the "group of social workers" who perform their duties diligently at the grassroots level.
According to the verdict, the boy Kai Kai was referred for adoption by the CWLF through the Shuying Social Welfare Center of the New Taipei City Social Welfare Department because his biological mother was unable to care for him. Social worker Chen Shang-chieh took on the case, which was later temporarily suspended. In June of the 112th year (2023), Kai Kai's grandmother applied for adoption, and Chen Shang-chieh again handled the case, arranging for nanny Liu Tsai-hsuan to provide full-time care.
Kai Kai, who was under two years old, was subjected to long-term abuse by Liu Tsai-hsuan and her sister Liu Jo-lin starting from September 112 (2023). He died after being sent to the hospital on December 24, 112, with at least 42 injuries all over his body and five abnormally missing teeth. Liu Tsai-hsuan and Liu Jo-lin were sentenced in the second instance to life imprisonment and 18 years in prison, respectively, with their cases now on appeal to the Supreme Court. (Editor: Lung Po-an) 1150421
The Taipei District Court announced the sentence on the 16th, believing that Chen Shang-chieh failed to fulfill the active duties required of her guarantor status, abandoned her professional stance, and blindly trusted the absurd excuses of the nanny, thereby repeatedly missing rescue opportunities. She was sentenced to two years in prison for causing death by negligence. The case is appealable.
The court published the full verdict today, using about 12 pages and over 7,000 words to discuss Chen Shang-chieh's guarantor status, and also released the LINE conversation records between Chen Shang-chieh and the nanny, Liu Tsai-hsuan.
The verdict pointed out that a person with guarantor status who, despite being objectively able to pay attention, negligently fails to do so, violating their duty of care, and where the result is objectively attributable to the negligent act with a considerable causal relationship, should be held responsible for the foreseeable result through criminal negligence.
The panel stated that the CWLF, being specially licensed by the Ministry of Health and Welfare for adoption matching services, created and placed Kai Kai in a potentially risky environment (a source of danger) by using Liu Tsai-hsuan, whom they recruited and reviewed, to provide placement services, as they did not have their own placement institutions. Thus, they should bear corresponding supervision and protection obligations.
The verdict determined that the CWLF was not merely a mediating role connecting childcare resources, but a "special-duty corporate institution" authorized by law to provide out-of-home placement for Kai Kai.
According to the verdict, during his out-of-home placement, Kai Kai was objectively completely separated from his grandmother's protection and was substantively in a closed, isolated, and vulnerable situation. Kai Kai's grandmother could not visit or supervise the nanny at will and could only passively rely on Chen Shang-chieh for contact and reports.
The verdict pointed out that Chen Shang-chieh, as the social worker responsible for Kai Kai's adoption case and the most important companion who could personally enter the premises to check on his care during the placement, had a duty to cooperate with the CWLF in verifying the quality of the nanny's care and tracking Kai Kai's physical and mental development to prevent his death.
Regarding the court's finding that Chen Shang-chieh voluntarily assumed the obligations of a guarantor, the verdict noted that the tripartite family daycare contract stipulated that Liu Tsai-hsuan could not disclose Kai Kai's personal information without reason. This meant the Wenshan Home-Based Child Care Service Center or the Shuying Social Welfare Center could not obtain information about Kai Kai from Liu Tsai-hsuan to assess whether he was receiving proper care.
The panel concluded that Chen Shang-chieh, according to the contract, had in fact excluded other external units and monopolized information about Kai Kai's adoption process and health. As the "contact social worker" in the contract, she was the substantive window for the CWLF to exercise its contractual supervision rights and obtain information on Kai Kai's childcare and health.
Furthermore, the panel, based on the testimony of a CWLF supervisor, found that Chen Shang-chieh was not required to provide complete communication records and photos with Liu Tsai-hsuan for her visit reports, nor was she required to produce phased written reports, only a work intervention record before the adoption matching. This prevented the supervisor from exercising substantive oversight and effectively blocked the possibility for the CWLF to intervene and rescue Kai Kai in time through its internal control mechanisms.
A supervisor from the Wenshan Home-Based Child Care Service Center also testified that the CWLF did not provide Kai Kai's family or health information, and the contract even stated that the nanny could not disclose the child's personal history during the care period. "I find it incredible. After registration, this child is under our jurisdiction, but you won't let me know any information about the child."
The panel believed that the Wenshan center could not obtain other information to help Kai Kai, nor was there a possibility of timely rescue.
A former social worker surnamed Shih from the Shuying Social Welfare Center testified, "I don't want to say here that I have no responsibility at all, but I feel that after the discussion, the first person to intervene should have been the defendant, because she was the most accessible."
The panel believed that a division of labor was naturally formed during the communication between the former worker Shih and Chen Shang-chieh, with Chen being responsible for assessing Kai Kai's care and well-being. Since Shih did not receive the nanny's name or other information, and Chen did not proactively provide it, Shih could not conduct supervision or timely intervention.
According to the verdict, Chen Shang-chieh claimed that Shih was the primary social worker. When Shih said she was not going to visit the nanny, Chen's reply of "understood" did not mean she thought the arrangement was appropriate or reasonable, but because in this network of cooperation, it is indeed sometimes the case that the primary social worker relies on other social workers to visit and understand the situation.
However, the panel argued that if Chen had doubts about her scope of responsibility, she should have clarified it with Shih immediately. By knowing Shih would not visit and deciding not to provide key information like the nanny's contact details, the possibility of rescuing Kai Kai was clearly higher for her than for the person she perceived as the primary social worker. This proves Chen had assumed the main responsibility for tracking and ensuring Kai Kai's well-being in care, objectively placing him under her exclusive protective control, thus having the guarantor status of voluntarily assuming protective duties.
The panel therefore determined that Chen, based on her role as an adoption social worker, the operation of the tripartite childcare contract, and her handling of the case twice, had a comprehensive grasp of Kai Kai's growth trajectory, environmental transitions, and physical examination data from birth. She could have pieced together the truth of Kai Kai's abuse through the changes in his physical and mental state.
The panel concluded that the determination of Chen's guarantor status—as a controller of a dangerous source in concert with a special-duty corporate institution and a voluntary assumer of protective duties—was based on the specific facts of the case, and not merely because of the defendant's professional identity as a social worker. In other words, the court believes the person who should bear the guarantor's duty is the "defendant" who had substantive control but failed to act, not the "group of social workers" who perform their duties diligently at the grassroots level.
According to the verdict, the boy Kai Kai was referred for adoption by the CWLF through the Shuying Social Welfare Center of the New Taipei City Social Welfare Department because his biological mother was unable to care for him. Social worker Chen Shang-chieh took on the case, which was later temporarily suspended. In June of the 112th year (2023), Kai Kai's grandmother applied for adoption, and Chen Shang-chieh again handled the case, arranging for nanny Liu Tsai-hsuan to provide full-time care.
Kai Kai, who was under two years old, was subjected to long-term abuse by Liu Tsai-hsuan and her sister Liu Jo-lin starting from September 112 (2023). He died after being sent to the hospital on December 24, 112, with at least 42 injuries all over his body and five abnormally missing teeth. Liu Tsai-hsuan and Liu Jo-lin were sentenced in the second instance to life imprisonment and 18 years in prison, respectively, with their cases now on appeal to the Supreme Court. (Editor: Lung Po-an) 1150421